tv [untitled] May 6, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PDT
systems. upgrades to the website. we're prepping to put in plays i will a new e-mail system that i understand would could be accommodated to provide some levels of permits that were issued as well as documents that have occurred. in terms of the specifics of a prescription based system there are some types of categories that we could accommodate. those that are troeltdz aspects of projects that are already tracked such as the planning neighborhood their located in. this is something that is auto made and we could do. other characters that would
require individuals to determine for each and every project which of the description categories. that is where we have certain about the prescription based testimony. the concept of subscribing e-mails are we're getting farther and farther behind. some of the specifics we may not be able to - we may require a lot of resources. where in a different place this year and maybe next year too. so build into a specific system
ultimately in the future might hamper our process >> but as it turned out you're not able to have the changes in this legislation that are contemplating should be properly noticed to the public and e-mail i'd be concerned this ordinance - some how we're not been able to provide the information and the technology is not matched up to the legislation. >> well, the posting of the exemptions on the map based system is something we have for certain we're going to be able
to accomplish. once we have that system running it's going to be a vast improvement of providing people information about providing information on a timeframe. probably what we're aiming for in a day or so when the exemption getting issued it is on this searchable map. that's something we expect to have in place by thou summer. so well in advance of the effective date. there was also the safeguard build in this that's a workable system prior to the ordinance being able to go in the event. so the level the information provided for in supervisors
wiener's legislation we feel we'll be able to accommodate technology. and even aspects of the further e-mail subscription based system are pieces of legislation that will be put in place. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you supervisor kim. >> thank you. i know we mention this every time we're in committee but because we can't talk outside of committee this is the first time we see the colleagues legislation. i'm reading through the legislation that president chiu handed out. is it the 10 amendments your proposing today? i crossed out two, that i'm not
going to be oh, today. i'm looking for feedback on the top priorities >> okay. so looking through those right now - again, i think over the past month we've seen both legislation move towards each other and we will also be introducing a set of substitute amendments next tuesday through our discussions with planning commission which two weeks ago. some of the amendments that were that president chiu is oh, today are largely once we support and currently in our election. i want to lascivious you're
putting into place we're expend approvals on amendment number 7. >> so again to restate for the public in 31 section b once ann an clerk has put the appeal the other departments can't put in things for approval so city boards will not be putting forward action. >> i think to go over again. many have been participating? this legislation. we talk about full-blown environmental impact proposals we deal with two types of amendments. the main difference we allow an appeal to go directly to the
board whereas the president chu's decision will go back to the board for appeal. second to engage in a scoping meeting for every eir which are roughly 10 a year. we set up the historic preservation a body that would set up the sequa process and we largely button into play by practice. those are the 3 main differences. so the differences we see are largely around exemptions. most of the discussions are about how we appeal the progress. i think it largely brings it
closely to what we suggested. a couple of things are important to me as we move forward as we look at sequa appeals. i think it's incredible important to expedite also bike and safety projects. your office is exploring president chiu. already planning is a sign of planner to a hundred percent of affordable housing and another two weeks - we've often heard about the housing projects the suggested language from the council of housing organizations is we come to a determination in 60 days. i know you're interested in that
but we want to further explore that. we again see this extensive from the community our neighborhoods are opened to parks. we live in very small residential units in san francisco so the open space people are concerned about it the city is planning changes. the last people is the subscription based notification. i know folks in this room are interested in that. we continue to know this is the temple that exists today but i think we have to get the resources to connect to planning
in order to do that. from a lay persons prospective i feel this is something businesses and organizations do on a daily the ability to sort through the types of projects by tagging them and allowing the community groups to say a community based subscription. something we want to do. i think that as i've said before if we're going to put in something on the back door end where we can appeal a project we have to supply a hierarchical level of communication. when i've questioned the community about appeals the community says they're not
understanding of the appeals. so i'm not saying that's the case but if that's the argument i think that type of communication is important to put into place. those are some of my comments. i appreciate the work from both offices and i think elaine who was helping >> and i want to thank supervisor kim and the folks who have raised a lot of issues. i think the issues you've raised around affordable housing and open space are the ones i'm concerned about but we can't community 0 outside of this committee body. >> i just want to provide some feedback.
in terms of the prioritization or, however, we want to talk about that the affordable housing projects or the pedestrian safety. it's a decision about how you we allocate resources. i think it's a rather broad conversation. i think the staff has to do more analysis and certainly a concept i'm open to but i think it's very important we take into account the many, many demands on the planning resources of the various types of projects in our city. in terms of the requiring a higher level of scrutiny of park improvements in requiring a
notice of determination in imply park i don't support the thought of it being proposed. there has been one of the concerns i've had about supervisors kim's legislation. it's making it more difficult time consuming and expensive is make changes in our parks every smaller changes. i'm glad that this legislation has been removed from supervisors kim's legislation. but requiring a notice of determination florida the slide and other things breakdown i don't want to have to go to a big department to get this done
and fixed. to - time sensitive changes in our parks is not the right way to go so i won't support that recommendation or that possible future amendment. i have one question while looking at the list your offering today. one is a disagreement about whether the departments can take any action in any legislation we had - have a provision that once an appeal is filed other government bodies can continue to take action so long as those actions do not permit a physical
changes to the property. so because the way sequa is instructed any one person can walk in and appeal it or whether it's supported by one appeal person or lots of appeals we also carefully consider that appeal and it takes typically months to move through the process and to have an inflexible rule that no other government body can take an action f even if this habilitation has nothing to do with the appeal is not okay. i'm looking at - so president
chiu i'm curious to know the thinking behind that. i understand, you know, there are a bunch of different views on this subject area but i do stand by the proposal i made >> i think there have been a number of independence where city boards have taken action that continue to take more momentum from a project when the project has been appealed because there are problematic issues that should be settled first. >> so what i thought made since was to again, when the appeal is scheduled it tolls the clock k clock for other boards and commissions.
once we know that has been appealed we hopeful that timeframe will resolve those issues soon enough but this language was attempting to strike between the varies possibilities of whether we could start to hear items at other boards and city commissions >> i understand the thinking about it. i guess my prospective is i think there's a way to provide full ability to appeal full public participation and allow everyone to have their day to the sequa objections to the project. the idea that time any time anyone files an appeal everything stops and even if
there is no reversible appeal to the property i think it is unnecessarily an appeal that could - the appeal should be fully considered but i don't see a reason to disallow other appeals that don't have a physical impact that's my prospective. >> i want to understand this. our legislation doesn't require a notification for the open park legislation >> that idea was floating around. >> right and a we're merely saying that the notification is an important piece for open space and parks and we've heard
a great deal of conversation. i think largely like i said before most of our members are good actors and this is a good way to appeal a decision. so hopefully, this will set up a better process. in terms of approvals holding approvals while we have pending appeal. i guess i'd like to hear - and i'd like to hear about instances when a project would have bend from that. we have currently a sequa appeal and i don't see how the committees have the ability to make approvals. largely i think this project is
very context and the rec and parks commissions will look to the comments as the board of supervisors tomorrow and the eir certification before we want to make their decision this would help when it is appropriate to make the process of when on a appeal is pending >> thank you any additional comments colleagues? in this case we'll open up for public comments. i'll call your names please line up on the side of the room. any reason you can't line up please let us know and we'll accommodate you. you don't have to go in the order i call your names.
(calling names). go ahead >> i'm former chair. i fully support the sequa proposals. i think the time has come for all of us to understand the notification process. i would support category exemptions for parks. i haven't seen this yet but like i pointed out supervisor wiener we don't want to start a process
of having to go through an appeal to repair a park. our parks are deteriorating and we're in the process of redoing our park. we don't need more hold ups. this is something we need further discussion on. it sounds like a good collaboration going on with the supervisors and i'm hopeful we'll get this done. i want to know what's going on around me sometimes, it's a fine print in the nip and very few people understand the notifications we get. i think there should be such participation as possible and i
commend you on tackling this >> thank you very much. one second. thank you for your patience >> good afternoon. i'm katie and i actually live in district 6 and a supervisor kim is my supervisor. i'm here to support her. i like the calibration going on but i'm very supportive of supervisor kim. we as the residents are the last ones to find out what's going on. i like the fact that supervisor kim is going to give a role to the preservation commission. we the residents the people who live here need to know what's
going on and as jeffrey said it needs to be a very simple notification. thank you very much >> thank you thank you. next speaker. >> we've here to support supervisors kim's legislation. basic the codification of the appeals process is limits the abusive california laws. businesses use sequa to pry concession out of employers and transitional use of promotions they don't president in their neighborhoods but supervisors
bill adds a calculator process. it fosters on environment where good decisions are made. we support the legislation that will rein in abuse and it will help our quality of life >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker >> i'm on the committee for sequa improvement team. i want to thank you all and david chiu for the amendments you've made to try to bring people together here but but there are some things are stronger than things here to be considered. it must be up to the approval process. i'm very clear about that need and in addition if we're going
to compromise between those two we have already compromised our view away from the opportunity of developers for any months. this legislation asks for all approvals to be noticed. this must be clearly defined what opportunity to appeal the application must be determined by the e r o of the planning department. and other agency must not be allowed to have the - planning should be responsible. 5 kim's notifying requirement are rovent and people must be
informed. i'd like to add i support the housing amendment that's proposed to give 60 days notice of notification. this needs more time and bicycling and pedestrian safety needs to be considered so i ask that this not be considered until may 20th. i support the preassumes a fact not in evidence for that >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon tim collin on behalf of the coalition organization. one of the issue is when does the period begin for an appeal. we feel that because of an abusive process it should begin very close to the approval our opposition would like it to be later in the process. i think to note the big
consequences of the different between the two views. our friends in the opposition say the right to appeal should not be denied on the other hand, we'd to point out the practical parting. i'd like to hear how the appeal of those projects is how have to san francisco. i'll include the library and the bicycling folks. and the bridges project for low income people how is appealing those projects helpful to san francisco. there's something fundamentally
wrong when affordable housing builders and the san francisco projects have to shell out big dollars to get approvals buildings permits. how does that help san francisco. we think that if we can't get to an early approval as a basisor appeal we're going to end up with more delegislators parks where someone can jump in at the last minute and stop it >> we have a public commiter on the phone who asked for a accommodate on the phone.
>> i'm - i'm calling because this is a very, very important issue that i want to thank you for the reasonable accomodation. but this will be one that leaves the residents of san francisco and i want to - i think that this is 20 important an issue to rush. i'm democratic in the sense i believe we should have a choice. it's not about supervisors kim's proposal or the other supervisor. it's about side by side and going through the entire process so the board of supervisors have two options there are